Parliament of Whores: A Lone Humorist Attempts to Explain the Entire U.S. Government

Called "an everyman's guide to Washington" (The New York Times), P. J. O'Rourke's savagely funny and national best-seller Parliament of Whores has become a classic in understanding the workings of the American political system. Originally written at the end of the Reagan era, this new edition includes an extensive foreword by the renowned political writer Andrew Ferguson -Called "an everyman's guide to Washington" (The New York Times), P. J. O'Rourke's savagely funny and national best-seller Parliament of Whores has become a classic in understanding the workings of the American political system. Originally written at the end of the Reagan era, this new edition includes an extensive foreword by the renowned political writer Andrew Ferguson -- showing us that although the names and the players have changed, the game is still the same. Parliament of Whores is an exuberant, broken-field run through the ethical foibles, pork-barrel flimflam, and bureaucratic bullrorfle inside the Beltway that leaves no sacred cow unskewered and no politically correct sensitivities unscorched....more

Paperback, 240 pages

Published
January 7th 2003
by Grove Press
(first published May 30th 1991)

This was probably my 1st O'Rourke book. (Maybe second, actually, after "CEO of the Sofa".) I finished the book, put my hands in my head, and despaired of my career. I could never write like this. I wasn't fit to write a review about this. Not on Amazon, not in my own diary. In fact, I should never write again, ever, to self-mute my ineptitude in the face of such captivating style. Mr. O'Rourke was witty and cutting and brilliant and hysterical. And something else: a libertarian. This, more thanThis was probably my 1st O'Rourke book. (Maybe second, actually, after "CEO of the Sofa".) I finished the book, put my hands in my head, and despaired of my career. I could never write like this. I wasn't fit to write a review about this. Not on Amazon, not in my own diary. In fact, I should never write again, ever, to self-mute my ineptitude in the face of such captivating style. Mr. O'Rourke was witty and cutting and brilliant and hysterical. And something else: a libertarian. This, more than anything, opened my eyes to politics of a different stripe. ...more

This book started off somewhat weakly, and I almost put it down without finishing. The first few chapters are a tour of the federal government, including all three branches and some of its political landscape (e.g., party conventions). To someone who reads the newspaper regularly and has a modest cynical streak (hello), there is nothing enlightening here. O'Rourke's observations mostly had me sighing and shaking my head ("Tell me something I don't know.") rather than laughing or learning.

The chaThis book started off somewhat weakly, and I almost put it down without finishing. The first few chapters are a tour of the federal government, including all three branches and some of its political landscape (e.g., party conventions). To someone who reads the newspaper regularly and has a modest cynical streak (hello), there is nothing enlightening here. O'Rourke's observations mostly had me sighing and shaking my head ("Tell me something I don't know.") rather than laughing or learning.

The chapter on the federal budget was interesting. O'Rourke balances the (early 1990s) federal budget deficit with some quick arithmetic and common sense. I always enjoy reading a rational, costs-and-benefits approach to policy. His (conservative) politics are on display here, however, and the reader's own ideology will determine just how "common" he finds O'Rourke's common sense.

This is the book's weakness. In my observation, it's easy to dismiss ideas and opinions that come from those with differing politics. Likewise, it's easy to nod and smile when you hear something that seems to reinforce your own position, without really hearing what's being said. What's difficult is considering the underlying ideas rather than quickly stuffing them into either the Red or the Blue pigeonhole. The book's arguments aren't strong or specific enough to reliably push the reader into thinking more openly.

Parliament's strengths are its middle chapters, which discuss specific national problems and government efforts to solve them. The chapters on drugs and poverty are powerful and worth reading, no matter what your politics. The same goes for the closing chapter, an account of the local government in the author's own small New England town. I enjoyed these very much, and they made me glad I kept reading after the less interesting opening chapters. Those first chapters, along with the blurbs on the cover, might lead you to dismiss the book as just another "boy, isn't government dumb?" throw-away; but by the middle there's something deeper going on. You start reading thinking O'Rourke's just pointing fingers, but you gradually see how we're the source of all the absurd and disgusting things government does.

In a way, Parliament is the opposite side of the coin from Naomi Wolf's Give Me Liberty. Wolf tells us how American democracy is sick and what we can do to cure it. O'Rourke knows that in a democracy, the sickness is us....more

4.0 stars. While written in the early 90's during the beginning of the first Bush administration (George, Sr.), this book is still surprisingly relevant today and is very, very funny. P.J. O'Rourke description of the three years he spent observing the U.S. Government in action is hysterical (and if you think too hard about it very scary). He blasts everything from the budget process, military spending, special interest groups and social security. My two favorite section was his scathing attacks4.0 stars. While written in the early 90's during the beginning of the first Bush administration (George, Sr.), this book is still surprisingly relevant today and is very, very funny. P.J. O'Rourke description of the three years he spent observing the U.S. Government in action is hysterical (and if you think too hard about it very scary). He blasts everything from the budget process, military spending, special interest groups and social security. My two favorite section was his scathing attacks on both farm subsidies and the presidential election process. Definitiely worth a read. ...more

This is the best non-fiction, humorous book I've ever read. I recommend to everybody. You CANNOT discuss farm policy without first reading the chapter on "Agriculture. Or how to tell your ass from this particular hole in the ground." Or the chapter when Ted Kennedy is shouting at the 88 convention, "Where was George?" and P.J. responds: "Dry, sober and home with his wife. At least he wasn't out drowning campaign volunteers."

I want to be P.J. O'Rourke when I grow up. Kinda conservative. Kinda druThis is the best non-fiction, humorous book I've ever read. I recommend to everybody. You CANNOT discuss farm policy without first reading the chapter on "Agriculture. Or how to tell your ass from this particular hole in the ground." Or the chapter when Ted Kennedy is shouting at the 88 convention, "Where was George?" and P.J. responds: "Dry, sober and home with his wife. At least he wasn't out drowning campaign volunteers."

I want to be P.J. O'Rourke when I grow up. Kinda conservative. Kinda drunk. And the best writer in the nation. ...more

I read this book quite a while ago. I remember seeing it in my local library, thinking that it looked pretty good, and decided to read it. At this time in my life I was pretty cynical about government, but in that generally uneducated type of way where we look at the politicians, think 'they really don't care about us' and label them all as jerks. I also remember the time as I was living in a swing seat and there was an election coming up, and I kept on receiving letters from both parties telli I read this book quite a while ago. I remember seeing it in my local library, thinking that it looked pretty good, and decided to read it. At this time in my life I was pretty cynical about government, but in that generally uneducated type of way where we look at the politicians, think 'they really don't care about us' and label them all as jerks. I also remember the time as I was living in a swing seat and there was an election coming up, and I kept on receiving letters from both parties telling me that my vote did count, and that my vote could swing the who system to either keep, or bring down the government. Woah, could little old me decide whether Paul Keating stays on as Prime Minister, or would he get tossed out in the trash heap (he stayed on). Well, the question is, does our vote really count? The Economists say no, and suggest that voting is a complete waste of time as we get nothing out of it. I believe that the Economists are full of rubbish, simply because if we all stopped voting (which we can't do in Australia since it is compulsory) then we would be stuck with whatever government was in power, and if it turned out to be some brutal dictator (say, like Hitler, or Mugabe) then we would really be in trouble. What the economists don't understand (but Isaac Asimov did) is that it is a part of the mass psychology. That is, while individually my vote may not count, as a collective, it does. That is where we, as individuals, go out to opening discuss our views with others. Many say that the three taboo subjects in Western Society is Sex, Religion, and Politics. The theory behind that is that all three subjects lead to arguments (with the exception of sex, as I shall explain). To me, sex is really the only taboo subject because that is simply an intimite act between two people, and it is something that you are not meant to go out and brag among your mates about (though I know it does happen, with regards to both sexes). However discussions regarding religion and politics I believe are important because it helps us understand each other and other people's world views. It just happens that many people are pretty stubborn in their world views and it is impossible to have a discussion with them because if they disagree they will berate you, and if they agree, they will treat it as a victory. Now, I am a socialist. I believe that government is necessary (and indeed a necessary evil) but it's major flaw is not so much the tools that sit in parliament, but those of us who do not hold them too account. Unfortunately government is changed through mass movements and not necessarily through individual actions (though such things can happen). I have seen incredibly popular leaders suddenly fall out of the public's interest within minutes. However, I believe that it is the government's role to support and protect the citizens of the country, but I also believe that it is the citizens role to also support the country. The final note on politicians, one that I really can't stand, and that is their double-speak. This is something that Orwell warned us about in 1984. With the advent of mass media, politicians (on behalf of their political parties) are able to get their message out much faster to a much wider range of people. However it will always been a standard, drafted speech, based upon a set of principles. While a government that stands firm (such as Howard's government) can be seen as strong, it can also be seen that those who don't agree are sidelined, even ridiculed. While both sides tend to be the same (and generally are only out to pamper themselves) I tend to find that the conservatives are much more inflexible, and in that way, unless you agree with then, then you are misguided at best, or an enemy of the state at worst. The important thing about a democracy is the ability to speak freely and feel free (within reason) to hold our own opinions without fear of persecution....more

I am too young to remember much, if anything, about the American government and its dealings in and before 1991, when Parliament of Whores was published. So I appreciated how detailed a picture O'Rourke painted of Uncle Sam, twenty years the younger. But even more than the painting itself, I appreciated his ultimately setting the canvas aflame with hilarious, biting criticism.

The main thing I love about this book, and all of O'Rourke's writing, is that it's not just some uninitiated blabbermouthI am too young to remember much, if anything, about the American government and its dealings in and before 1991, when Parliament of Whores was published. So I appreciated how detailed a picture O'Rourke painted of Uncle Sam, twenty years the younger. But even more than the painting itself, I appreciated his ultimately setting the canvas aflame with hilarious, biting criticism.

The main thing I love about this book, and all of O'Rourke's writing, is that it's not just some uninitiated blabbermouth opining on this-and-that. It's true journalism (and I know how much the author would detest this description, but hear me out). This guy dives headfirst into his subjects so he can pass on raw truths, not just opinions and pointed jabs. For instance, the chapter on poverty tells of the author tagging along on a Bronx crack-house raid with the Guardian Angels-- botched ending, forced getaway and all! But street cred isn't the only "cred". The cases made throughout the book are formed with cold, hard, cited facts. If so-called "journalists" today put forth half as much effort into observing and researching before opening their figurative mouths, we'd all be a lot better off. That said, the one-liners are fortunately quite numerous and provide sorely needed levity. Underneath, this is a well-researched piece about the inner workings of the three branches. In other words, you laugh and you cry; I'm not sure which more!

1991-and-previous events I'd heard, but knew little of, are detailed. It was a treat to digest these topics through O'Rourke's 100% effective bullshit filter-- oil price woes, the Afghan front at the end of the Cold War, the obscene agricultural subsidies, the Savings & Loan bailout-- hey wait a minute, that all sounds familiar! Here in 2011 we have our own oil price woes, war in Afghanistan, obscenely subsidized... most things (incl. agriculture), and a hot-off-the-presses financial-sector bailout. Reading this book was like reading the news. It just goes to show how much history really does repeat itself, especially enabled by such an inattentive, unvigilant, and gosh-darned forgetful electorate as America's.

So the things specific to the time period in this book are still worth reading, even if only for perspective on current events. But there is plenty of discussion of problems that haven't been solved by our Washington warriors, keeping these sections relevant. A failed drug policy, a failed poverty policy, yadda yadda yadda. In fact, if it's been designated a policy, it's probably failed. Which reminds me, there's Social Security discussion, too.

Yes, this affirms it. Parliament of Whores is like reading the news. But way easier; the problems seemed moderately addressable back then! O'Rourke even devotes a chapter, albeit tongue-in-cheek, to single-handedly balancing the budget. Although it's meant as a joke, I think the bigger joke (on Americans, anyway) is that his spending cuts are tenable. However, many of the programs on his cutting-room floor have only, oh, exponentially grown since then. This social spending growth in the past two decades is a bit hard to fathom-- that is until O'Rourke makes it believable with his chapters on special interests.

With an all-encompassing snapshot of Washington politics, and a guaranteed eight or nine laughs per page, Parliament of Whores is P.J. O'Rourke at his sharpest. (although a good question would be, when is he not?)...more

This is the most devastating critique of government since H.L. Mencken, although O'Rourke is short on constructive solutions to most of the problems he exposes.O'Rourke spent considerable time following around an unnamed congressman. O'Rourke, quite correctly, argues we get a bargain for our money. The average congressman has a budget of around $550,000 for staff, salaries, and expenses. That works out to only about $1.00 per taxpayer in his district. That's pretty cheap considering all the gripThis is the most devastating critique of government since H.L. Mencken, although O'Rourke is short on constructive solutions to most of the problems he exposes. O'Rourke spent considerable time following around an unnamed congressman. O'Rourke, quite correctly, argues we get a bargain for our money. The average congressman has a budget of around $550,000 for staff, salaries, and expenses. That works out to only about $1.00 per taxpayer in his district. That's pretty cheap considering all the gripes and whining he/she has to listen to for a living. The congressman has a staff of 9 employees. There aren't many businesses serving 600,000 that could survive with that small a staff, and the congressman makes far less than a "shortstop hitting .197." A few more O'Rourkisms: "The Graham-Hollings bill [deficit reduction act was like trying to stop smoking by hiding cigarettes from yourself and then leaving a note in your pocket telling you where they are." His description of journalism: "Trying to find hair in a bowl of dough." He leaves us with the reflection that government may be a parliament of whores, but "in a democracy the whores are us....more

I am fairly sure I remember reading this 15 years ago and thinking it was not very interesting - a not very subtle attempt to recreate the style of Hunter S. Thompson but in the voice of a conservative.O'Rourke begins by thanking all the usual suspects of the conservative movement in DC - like wacky Dana Rhorabacher and Chris Cox, who left Congress to run the SEC into the ground.His book is divided into sections that look at the legislative, executive and judicial branch. Each time, he is drippiI am fairly sure I remember reading this 15 years ago and thinking it was not very interesting - a not very subtle attempt to recreate the style of Hunter S. Thompson but in the voice of a conservative.O'Rourke begins by thanking all the usual suspects of the conservative movement in DC - like wacky Dana Rhorabacher and Chris Cox, who left Congress to run the SEC into the ground.His book is divided into sections that look at the legislative, executive and judicial branch. Each time, he is dripping with sarcasm and disdain.I will admit that his description of Congress isn't far off - especially vivid compared to the piece George Packer just wrote about the Senate for the New Yorker.O'Rourke visits the 88 convention and uses it to mock Ted Kennedy, and he does make a good point about how candidates who have tough things to say, such as Bruce Babbitt and Pete Dupont, are quickly brushed aside in favor of generalities.The best part of his book is the section where he describes how the press truly believes that they are a 4th arm of the government and mostly acts in a way that suggests they are more than "glorified stenographers."While a free press is essential, much of the dysfunction in the Capital is thanks largely to the 24-hour cable cycle and a press corps that avoids substance in favor of conflict and personalities.O'Rourke does that more than most, but his book is pretty forgettable....more

I have to read PJ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores every year just to keep myself grounded when I ponder politics. Too many potlickers out there wanting to get elected to office, or already in office, or railing against gubmint handouts and getting mad when they get laid off from their government jobs and too many people willing to say, hey, you've got money, let the government have it and boy howdy it'll fix things right up because the government can do everything right.

I'm not a libertarian asI have to read PJ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores every year just to keep myself grounded when I ponder politics. Too many potlickers out there wanting to get elected to office, or already in office, or railing against gubmint handouts and getting mad when they get laid off from their government jobs and too many people willing to say, hey, you've got money, let the government have it and boy howdy it'll fix things right up because the government can do everything right.

I'm not a libertarian as O'Rourke is; I do not identify with any political party that's in the boutique at the moment.

So, smarty, how do we fix it? It's beyond repairable if you ask me. Only advice I've ever heard that makes sense comes from another humorist, Dave Barry, who says we're better off just regarding government as a form of entertainment, like any reality show you might care to watch, except that they're playing with our money....more

It's funny to read a 25-year-old book on American politics in its British edition. Was there a huge demand for this, in England? At this point (the 25-year-old point) the book reads like political history, interesting for its window back on the 1988 US Presidential election, from the perspective of someone who makes his living skewering people. Most interesting to me is the final chapter, in which O'Rourke recounts a town meeting from his hometown (which is barely big enough to deserve to be calIt's funny to read a 25-year-old book on American politics in its British edition. Was there a huge demand for this, in England? At this point (the 25-year-old point) the book reads like political history, interesting for its window back on the 1988 US Presidential election, from the perspective of someone who makes his living skewering people. Most interesting to me is the final chapter, in which O'Rourke recounts a town meeting from his hometown (which is barely big enough to deserve to be called "town") and his realization that even he is willing to abuse government to meet his own needs. Parliament of whores, maybe, but the parliament is us....more

I'm giving up on this book. PJ O'Rourke has good moments, but this is 20% insight, 20% humor of sorts, & 60% facetiousness. (I was going to write "stupidity" - but it's more the lack of an attempt to understand that bothers me, and O'Rourke isn't actually a fool).

I did skip ahead, and it improved, but not enough to make me want to read the whole thing, when there are better things to read. I do want to check out his book on Adam Smith though: "On The Wealth of Nations (Books That Changed theI'm giving up on this book. PJ O'Rourke has good moments, but this is 20% insight, 20% humor of sorts, & 60% facetiousness. (I was going to write "stupidity" - but it's more the lack of an attempt to understand that bothers me, and O'Rourke isn't actually a fool).

I did skip ahead, and it improved, but not enough to make me want to read the whole thing, when there are better things to read. I do want to check out his book on Adam Smith though: "On The Wealth of Nations (Books That Changed the World)"...more

O'Rourke is a genuinely funny and interesting writer and I enjoyed this book. It didn't really live up to the billing (he does not explain any of the US Government, just gives some snapshots) but it did provide lots of interesting views on US society and political institutions. To a Brit such as me the author's own politics seem very right-wing, but I accept that he's not particularly extreme by US standards and I was mainly able to put aside my opposition to his views to hear what he had to sayO'Rourke is a genuinely funny and interesting writer and I enjoyed this book. It didn't really live up to the billing (he does not explain any of the US Government, just gives some snapshots) but it did provide lots of interesting views on US society and political institutions. To a Brit such as me the author's own politics seem very right-wing, but I accept that he's not particularly extreme by US standards and I was mainly able to put aside my opposition to his views to hear what he had to say and to laugh at how he said it. I suspect that many will not find this possible so I wouldn't recommend this book if you have a solidly left-leaning view of the world - it will just annoy you. Otherwise, park your own political views for a while and dive in....more

The author does a fine job of showing how each part of the government works as a separate part and as a whole sucking off of the other parts. Lots of humor and some fortune telling thrown in make this a very good read. I like when he explains the budget and how all of the entitlements people constantly clamor for are sending the U.S into bankruptcy. And he even explains how only a complete idiot could fall for such a dumb ass thing as a National Healthcare System as this would create a major sucThe author does a fine job of showing how each part of the government works as a separate part and as a whole sucking off of the other parts. Lots of humor and some fortune telling thrown in make this a very good read. I like when he explains the budget and how all of the entitlements people constantly clamor for are sending the U.S into bankruptcy. And he even explains how only a complete idiot could fall for such a dumb ass thing as a National Healthcare System as this would create a major suckhole that in itself could destroy the budget.As I say this book was written in the early 90's and does contain a bit of a crystal ball as he projects some things that even today are occurring....more

So, here is a question. How angry do you want to get when you read a book? Do you want to feel fury and betrayed? Yes? Well, curl up with this one. Once you realize that it was written in 1991 and that the issues discussed are the EXACT same issues being discussed now, you will understand what I mean.

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying that O'Rourke is right with his assessment of the United States Government. I disagree with him on a large number of topics. What I am saying is that tSo, here is a question. How angry do you want to get when you read a book? Do you want to feel fury and betrayed? Yes? Well, curl up with this one. Once you realize that it was written in 1991 and that the issues discussed are the EXACT same issues being discussed now, you will understand what I mean.

Don't get me wrong, I am certainly not saying that O'Rourke is right with his assessment of the United States Government. I disagree with him on a large number of topics. What I am saying is that the lack of progress is what will fire you up. Don't believe me, try reading 3 chapters without getting angry. Any 3 chapters will do. Good luck. ...more

Written with all the eloquence of your curmudgeonly, get-off-my-lawn neighbor, the disdain and condescension directed toward the poor is almost enough to turn this libertarian into a Democrat. I generally agree with the sentiments, but the tone--even allowing for humor--was completely distasteful to me. Also, the chapter defending defense spending because otherwise that money would be wasted on something else is laughable, and not in the way the author intended. The last chapter was great, and aWritten with all the eloquence of your curmudgeonly, get-off-my-lawn neighbor, the disdain and condescension directed toward the poor is almost enough to turn this libertarian into a Democrat. I generally agree with the sentiments, but the tone--even allowing for humor--was completely distasteful to me. Also, the chapter defending defense spending because otherwise that money would be wasted on something else is laughable, and not in the way the author intended. The last chapter was great, and almost bumped up to a 3-star rating, but then I remembered the gag reflex I had to fight during much of the book....more

Although writing on the problems of an ineffectual government from the perspective of 1989, it is amazing how much things HAVEN'T changed. The US still tends to throw it's military weight around without understanding the subtleties of foreign cultures. There's a chapter on foreign policy that deals specifically with the double-dealing of various tribal groups in Afghanistan, in 1989 the Russians were on the receiving end of this, now we are. Budgets and what to do about increasing medical coastsAlthough writing on the problems of an ineffectual government from the perspective of 1989, it is amazing how much things HAVEN'T changed. The US still tends to throw it's military weight around without understanding the subtleties of foreign cultures. There's a chapter on foreign policy that deals specifically with the double-dealing of various tribal groups in Afghanistan, in 1989 the Russians were on the receiving end of this, now we are. Budgets and what to do about increasing medical coasts for the elderly were also addressed, although the urgency of the national debt was not as large. It is also interesting to note that it took about 35 years to go double the US budget from 800 million to 1.7 trillion (I remember when Reagan signed the first budget to break the trillion dollar mark) but it only took us 20 more years to more than double that amount to today's current 3.7 trillion. Not a welcome trend for the future. In the process, O'Rourke manages to skewer just about every minority and majority group, but his finest is saved for the leaders of our Parliament of Whores....more

Pithy, humorous, cynical, factual and troubling, “Parliament” explores Congress and the U.S. Government as of the early 1990’s. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are spared the acid pen of O’Rourk as he skewers and makes fun of Congress, our drug policy, our foreign policy, defense policy, Dept. of Agriculture, special interest groups, and us for allowing it all. Mostly he attacks the way our government spends money. (I would think O’Rourk’s head would explode, if it has not already done so, up Pithy, humorous, cynical, factual and troubling, “Parliament” explores Congress and the U.S. Government as of the early 1990’s. Neither Republicans nor Democrats are spared the acid pen of O’Rourk as he skewers and makes fun of Congress, our drug policy, our foreign policy, defense policy, Dept. of Agriculture, special interest groups, and us for allowing it all. Mostly he attacks the way our government spends money. (I would think O’Rourk’s head would explode, if it has not already done so, upon considering today’s government expenditures.) While I chose this book because of some O’Rourk comments I saw somewhere or other that struck my cynical funny bone, I was more disturbed than humored by “Parliament”, and while I liked it, I was glad to be finished with it, so I can stick my head back in the sand where retirees like myself belong. O’Rourk includes in his book two quotes from others that I found particularly to my liking, so I’ll add them here.

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.” Alexander Tytler, 18th century Scottish historian.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H. L. Mencken

O'Rourke is funny, but his humor is not dynamic. His political criticism is at times insightful, but for the most part unsophisticated and blunt, and his jokes often fall short because of this bluntness. He gives a pretty generic libertarian critique of government, ranting against government inefficiency without giving a viable alternative. He rails against the farm bill, entitlements, elderly monopolization of politics, environmentalists, and points out various absurdities in the government. HiO'Rourke is funny, but his humor is not dynamic. His political criticism is at times insightful, but for the most part unsophisticated and blunt, and his jokes often fall short because of this bluntness. He gives a pretty generic libertarian critique of government, ranting against government inefficiency without giving a viable alternative. He rails against the farm bill, entitlements, elderly monopolization of politics, environmentalists, and points out various absurdities in the government. His criticism rings most true when he points the finger at the ignorance of the voters themselves. His conservatism rings hollow and ignorant especially in his macho-shooting-shit-is-cool defense of military spending. His tone is unrealistically pessimistic. If one were to be introduced to American government through this book, one would find it hard to believe that America is the most powerful and wealthy society in the world. In the end, this book is good for one-liners that hint at depth of insight that was never there....more

Originally published in 1991.I read the 1992 Vintage Books paperback edition.

Dated but still has teeth.

P.J. O'Rourke goes after the ridiculousness that is the federal government with his trademark irreverent style in this 1991 book. Some of the commentary is dated (lots of talk about the forgettable 1988 presidential election with Republican George H.W. Bush going against Democrat Michael Dukakis. Also, the first one I voted in) but some of it is incredibly relevant. For example, the story of thOriginally published in 1991.I read the 1992 Vintage Books paperback edition.

Dated but still has teeth.

P.J. O'Rourke goes after the ridiculousness that is the federal government with his trademark irreverent style in this 1991 book. Some of the commentary is dated (lots of talk about the forgettable 1988 presidential election with Republican George H.W. Bush going against Democrat Michael Dukakis. Also, the first one I voted in) but some of it is incredibly relevant. For example, the story of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHSTA) looking into the mystery of suddenly accelerating Audis 1n 1986 was reminiscent of the same problem with Toyotas that filled the news channels in 2009 and 2010.

Perhaps O'Rourke's most famous line comes from this book: "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." (pg. xvii in the preface) This sentiment is pretty typical of the book as a whole and one that I generally agree with. O'Rourke talks with former advisors to presidents, shadows a congressman, talks with lobbyists, bureaucrats, policeman, people who live in atrocious government "projects" built for the poor to live in, and more.

O'Rourke notes on page 36: "It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money." And, O'Rourke proceeds to show the reader how and makes a solid case for a smaller, leaner government. He also explains how it got to be such a mess.

I may not completely agree with O'Rourke's politics, but he is outstandingly funny. This sharp wit is merciless in his taunting of almost every institution in America, even making jokes about the Supreme Court, the Disability Act, and the AIDS Memorial Quilt. It's safe to say you are a stickler for political correctness, this is not a book for you. O'Rourke is also lovely in that he's conservative, but refreshingly thoughtful and moderate about the world around him. Much of the essay is journaliI may not completely agree with O'Rourke's politics, but he is outstandingly funny. This sharp wit is merciless in his taunting of almost every institution in America, even making jokes about the Supreme Court, the Disability Act, and the AIDS Memorial Quilt. It's safe to say you are a stickler for political correctness, this is not a book for you. O'Rourke is also lovely in that he's conservative, but refreshingly thoughtful and moderate about the world around him. Much of the essay is journalistic investigation, and therefore contains anecdotes that both serve to entertain with the sheer outrageousness of the events he sees before him, but also to enlighten through thoughtful commentary about the nature of everything from Congress to drug policy. For me, the absolute golden part of the book is the first half. Containing an overview of American politics and a study of the 3 branches of the government, this humorist illustrates the utter inanity and absurdity that is American government. The second half of the book also entertain and contains wonderul thoughts, but these essays seem more shaped to O'Rourke's own libertarian worldview, and leave some room for debate. The humor is also a tad bit dated as it was written for an 80s-90s crowd, but still pretty understandable to this day. Nonetheless, the book's disarming combination of laughs, wit, and intelligence really prevent me from giving it anything other than a perfect 5 stars....more

P.J. O'Rourke has the same political acuity as people like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell. He also has a funny vein so deep and rich that it seems endless. When his combines these two things you have some of the most razor-sharp political and cultural writing and humor ever to come along since Will Rogers, but using all the language mother washed your mouth out with soap for using. The result is uproariously funny.

Now, a conservative, O'Rourke refers to himself as "a former lonP.J. O'Rourke has the same political acuity as people like George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Thomas Sowell. He also has a funny vein so deep and rich that it seems endless. When his combines these two things you have some of the most razor-sharp political and cultural writing and humor ever to come along since Will Rogers, but using all the language mother washed your mouth out with soap for using. The result is uproariously funny.

Now, a conservative, O'Rourke refers to himself as "a former long-haired, dope smoking, commie pinkio liberal with the scars on my formerly bleeding heart to prove it."

His career spans stints as editor of National Lampoon, Foreign Correspondent for Rolling Stone ("they hired me to be a Republican."), plus side ventures into automotive writing.

This one here is his first book, and is a hysterical look at government. You'll be laughing out loud throughout most of the book, right up till he hits you with the scorpion sting he has saved for the very last. ...more

I'd say this one's a solid 3.6. It was published nearly two decades ago so the info is dated (and so, apparently, am I. Woe is me) but a lot of PJ's observations are still pretty spot-on. The author is a funny guy. At times he gets a little absorbed in his own cleverness, but the comic vanity wasn't ridiculously frequent and there were at least a few genuine laugh out loud moments for me. And that's not an easy thing to accomplish since I am by nature more of a silent chortler. I especially enjoI'd say this one's a solid 3.6. It was published nearly two decades ago so the info is dated (and so, apparently, am I. Woe is me) but a lot of PJ's observations are still pretty spot-on. The author is a funny guy. At times he gets a little absorbed in his own cleverness, but the comic vanity wasn't ridiculously frequent and there were at least a few genuine laugh out loud moments for me. And that's not an easy thing to accomplish since I am by nature more of a silent chortler. I especially enjoyed the chapters on interest groups. There was some great stuff. This book is not a treatise on how to fix government. It's more of an ironic emphasizing of what we already know or thought we knew about how government functions. I'm a fan of pointing out the stupid wherever it happens to fester, so I appreciated the author's snark, although some readers might be offended by his language, so be forewarned. In addition, while I didn't see an awful lot to get huffy about, I did detect a thread of misogyny in his writing. I don't mean to imply that I think the author hates women in general, but feminists are given some harsh treatment in the book. I know he's a humorist and he makes fun of everybody, but I (perhaps naively) sensed a kind of affection or at least a good-natured something in most of the mockery. However, with the feminist jeers I just read venom. It wasn't super prevalent (he only brings them up a few times) but it stood out to me. Maybe I had mistakenly donned my fem critic hat and exposed my over-sensitivity. Take the critique for what it's worth. It's still a funny book and still worth a read if only to see how eerily accurate PJ's forecasts were from the first Bush administration to today. It's even more eerie to ponder where we're headed....more

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it,
click here.Basically, it was a summary of all the ways in which people want benefits from the government without paying for them. He champions personal responsibility and hard work above all else. He seemed to be more of a libertarian than a republican. It was a good look at the absurdity of the American system of government. One tendency of O'Rourkes writing that I really liked was his pointing out that it is our fault that everything is so fucked up. We're the ones that are lazy and want to blame politicBasically, it was a summary of all the ways in which people want benefits from the government without paying for them. He champions personal responsibility and hard work above all else. He seemed to be more of a libertarian than a republican. It was a good look at the absurdity of the American system of government. One tendency of O'Rourkes writing that I really liked was his pointing out that it is our fault that everything is so fucked up. We're the ones that are lazy and want to blame politicians for being human. You can't have a system like ours and expect people to run it well.

The best parts are when between jokes he suddenly becomes serious and you realize that he just dropped bombs on you. Fucking great.

It was also funny.

Quotes:

"You kids today, you don't know how good you've got it. Why, back in 1979 inflation was so bad that nickles cost fifty cents, the Dow was minus a million, they were giving out food stamps as stock dividends and you couldn't walk to your garage without getting held hostage by the Iranians."

"Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die." (DEA's Perez)

"We're Americans. These are modern times. Nothing bad is going to happen to us. If we get fired, it's not failure; it's a midlife vocational reassessment. If we screw up a marriage, we can get another one. There's no shame in divorce. Day care will take the kids, and the ex-wife can go back to the career she was bitching about leaving. If we get convicted of a crime, we'll go to tennis prison and probably not even that. We'll just have to futz around doing community service for a while. Or maybe we can tearfully confess everything, join a support group and get off the hook by listening to shrinks tell us we don't like ourselves enough. Hell, play our cards right, and we can get a book contract out of it. We don't have to be serious about the drug problem-or anything else."

"This is a democracy. We're free to change what our government does any time we want. All we have to do is vote on it. In the meantime, if people like me--rich, white, privileged, happy--cannot even bother to abide by the legal standards of their freely constituted society, of a society that has provided them with everything a civilization can be expected to provide, then those people deserve their drug problems and everybody else's drug problems, too. They deserve--I deserve--to have every crack addict in the country knocking on the front door saying, 'I lives here. Can I go in?'"

P. J. O’Rourke was born and raised in Toledo, Ohio, and attended Miami University and Johns Hopkins. He began writing funny things in 1960s “underground” newspapers, became editor-in-chief of National Lampoon, then spent 20 years reporting for Rolling Stone and The Atlantic Monthly as the world’s only trouble-spot humorist, going to wars, riots, rebellions, and other “Holidays in Hell” in more thaP. J. O’Rourke was born and raised in Toledo, Ohio, and attended Miami University and Johns Hopkins. He began writing funny things in 1960s “underground” newspapers, became editor-in-chief of National Lampoon, then spent 20 years reporting for Rolling Stone and The Atlantic Monthly as the world’s only trouble-spot humorist, going to wars, riots, rebellions, and other “Holidays in Hell” in more than 40 countries. He’s written 16 books on subjects as diverse as politics and cars and etiquette and economics. His book about Washington, Parliament of Whores, and his book about international conflict and crisis, Give War a Chance, both reached #1 on the New York Times best-seller list. He is a contributing editor at The Weekly Standard, H. L. Mencken fellow at the Cato Institute, a member of the editorial board of World Affairs and a regular panelist on NPR’s Wait… Wait… Don’t Tell Me. He lives with his family in rural New England, as far away from the things he writes about as he can get....more

“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.”
—
45 likes

“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
—
14 likes